Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: How many verbs?

From:Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Saturday, July 17, 2004, 6:53
On Friday, July 16, 2004, at 08:35 , Philippe Caquant wrote:

[snip]
> (This will probably happen the day when we shall no > more think in terms of "verbs" and "adverbs" - which > are syntactical notions, thus depending on particular > languages - but in terms of meaning relations. What is > a verb ? Nothing.
*verb* /vɜ:b/ n. (V) One of the most important lexical categories, and one which is seemingly universal. The class of verbs i every language is both large and open. Grammatically speaking, verbs are most obviously distinguished by the fact that each verb typically requires the presence in its sentence of a specific set of NP [noun phrase] arguments, each of which typically represents some particular semantic role and each of which may be required to appear in some particular grammatical form (particular case marking, particular preposition etc.). So wrote the late Larry Trask in "A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics". Not my idea of 'nothing'; and I'm trying to figure out how 'meaning relations' differs radically from 'semantic roles'. But then, what did Larry Trask know about linguistics?
> A verb in English, or in Russian, or > in Georgian, might be something,
But, presumably according to you, might be nothing (else why use 'might'?)
> but such a thing as > "a verb" (or: "an adverb") simply does not exist.)
The category traditionally labeled 'adverb' in English or French is treated in many different ways in the world's great variety of natural languages. It is not comparable IMHO to the category called 'verb'. What evidence do you have that a thing called "verb" does not exist? Ray =============================================== http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown ray.brown@freeuk.com (home) raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk (work) =============================================== "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply

Philippe Caquant <herodote92@...>